Welcome to the new Becker-Posner Blog, maintained by the University of Chicago Law School.

10/07/2007

Intellectuals, Free speech, and Capitalism-Becker

Posner's examples offer strong support for the sharp limits on free speech in American universities. Another indication is the recent petition signed by hundreds of Stanford faculty against the appointment of Donald Rumsfield to a very part-time position as a Distinguished Fellow of the Hoover Institution, a think tank that is part of Stanford (I am a Fellow of Hoover). According to this petition, Rumsfield is not worthy of Stanford, despite his having served his country twice as Secretary of Defense, as a Congressman, and at several other important government positions. He was also a very successful head of two companies, and he has an intellect that is far superior to many professors at top universities.
Although there are numerous exceptions in economics and political science departments, business and medical schools, and elsewhere, the majority of faculty is considerably to the left of the general population. They are at the forefront of the politically correct movement. This is why Larry Summers ran into the problems that led to his resignation as president of Harvard. However, college faculties are not the only promoters of political correctness. Many print and TV journalists, actors and movie directors, and others involved in more intellectual and creative pursuits have the same views. Why is this so?
I wish I had the answer; I don‚Äôt, so I will speculate about possible reasons. In his 1950 book, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, the great economist, Joseph Schumpeter, discussed exactly this question when asking why intellectuals were so opposed to capitalism during his time? His answer mainly was that businessmen do better under capitalism, whereas intellectuals believe they would have a more influential position under socialism and communism. In essence, Schumpeter's explanation is based on intellectuals' feeling envious of the success of others under capitalism combined with their desire to be more important.
I do believe that Schumpeter put his finger on one of the important factors behind the skepticism of intellectuals toward markets, and their continuing support of what governments do. Neither the unsuccessful performance of the US government first in Vietnam and now in Iraq, which they so strongly condemn, nor even the colossal failures of socialism and communism during the past half century, succeeded in weakening the faith of intellectuals in governmental solutions to problems rather than private market solutions. Since their basic hostility to capitalism is largely unabated, but they are embarrassed to openly advocate socialism and very large governments, given the history of the 20th century, intellectuals have shifted their attacks to criticisms of the way they believe private enterprise systems treat women and minorities, the environment, and various other issues. They also promote political correctness in what one can say about causes of differences in performance among different groups, health care systems, and other issues.
I believe considerations in addition to simple jealousy and envy are behind the opposition of intellectuals to capitalism. A belief in free markets requires confidence in the view that both sides to a trade generally gain from it, that a person's or a company's gain is not usually at the expense of those they trade with, even when everyone is motivated solely by their own selfish interests. This is highly counter-intuitive, which is why great intellectuals like the 16th century French essayist, Marquis de Montaigne, even had a short essay with the revealing title "That the Profit of One Man is the Damage of Another ". It is much easier to believe that governments are more likely than private individuals and enterprises to further the general interest.
Of course, the evidence that has been accumulated since Schumpeter's book gives good marks to free market systems in promoting the interests of the poor and middle classes, including minorities. And examples abound of corrupt and incompetent government officials who either mess things up for everyone, or promote these officials' interests. This evidence has impressed the man and woman in the street, but intellectuals are more removed from the real world, and tend to rely on and trust ideas and intellectual arguments.
This would be my primary explanation for the questions raised by Posner about why faculty (and I add other intellectuals too) have become further to the left of their students and the general population. In effect, intellectuals have changed their views far less than other groups in response to the evidence. While intellectual opinions have stood rather still, the general population has moved their thinking against government solutions and toward solutions that use markets and other private transactions and relations.

Comments

************************************************
[Assumption]Intellectuals in academism are more removed from the real world (than non-academics).
->Academic intellectuals tend to ignore real world evidence on govermental failures.
->Academism has a leftism bias.
************************************************

This is Becker's new account here. Things about Rumsfelds etc. are NOT the central issue.

Please focus on discussion about these two "logical arrows(->)" and the assumption.

Do you think Becker made mistake in the assumption? Or one of the arrows (or both) are wrong?

(Prof. Klein, whether Becker is "small" or large is not the issue at all. Do you CARE whether Keynes was homosexual when you critisize IS-LM analysis and/or Keynesian policies? Probably no. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

The demand that you often see for empirical data supporting the notion that academia leans drastically left is only an attempt to distract or distort a real consideration of its effect, because such lean is so stunningly obvious as to require no debate. Yet in order to get past this needless distraction from the real analysis the data is developed and consistently shows this leftward lean, we then have to debate whether the data is good or not and the conclusions to draw from it. This is all a delaying tactic by those in academia who would do whatever is possible to stave off the day of reckoning. How hypocritical to purport to be open to intellectual arguments of all stripes yet to do all that is possible to avoid facing up to one that might shed light on embarassing truths.

My wife is a professor (at the University of Chicago, as it happens). I was an entrepreneurial businessman for years. So I have deep knowledge of both ends of this.

The faculty there is OVERWHELMINGLY leftist/left/Democrat/socialist/communist/dreadlocked-Drum-Circle/whatever. To argue the contrary is to enter flat-earth-land and embarrass yourself. I lived in Hyde Park for years and walked the campus daily. Whether it's 75% or 80% or 90% lefties is irrelevant; it's overwhelming and pervasive.

University types tend toward government/state solutions because they have not worked in the real world for the most part. They have never employed anyone, they have never fired anyone, they have never borrowed money to run a business (and had to pay it back with interest), they have never had to worry about efficiency or getting a job done on time, they have never had to please or placate a customer or some government bureaucrat, they virtually never have to negotiate, they have never had to make a sale, they have never had to produce anything of real value to another person, they have never had to fill out tax form after tax form after tax form, they have never had to weigh economic options, they have never taken risks, etc.

Experience with all these things tends to pull people to the right, to an understanding of how markets function and why they are absolutely necessary for things to work well.

I have known more academics than I can count, and most of them don't have the sense to run a hotdog stand, regardless of how brilliant they may be in their individual fields (and in the humanities it's often not too brilliant indeed).

But you can NEVER NEVER NEVER persuade them of this. You can point this stuff out until you are blue in the face and you may as well be talking Kant to a cat. They take their foundational beliefs on faith as surely as any "Bible-thumper."

Take them out of their cushy, often overpaid jobs and some of them would literally starve to death in two weeks.

Chester: Perhaps you're overlooking the product created by our college staffers.

"they have never had to produce anything of real value to another person"

............ and now you have me wondering how to estimate the added-value created by them.

I suppose we could start by crediting them with some percentage of the million dollars of increased lifetime earnings. Then we could consider that company's gross and that of our GDP is increased by more than what is paid to them. But there's more yet; today most of our high tech entrepreneurs owe much of their success to their college education. Then, with fair frequency the US military turns to academia for answers to its problems. Well, you get the idea.

I've produced quite a bit in the private sector and have been fairly well paid for my efforts, but at times look on somewhat enviously at what is produced by educators. The product is shipped only once a year, often late in the day wrapped in cap and gown and constitutes about 25% of our workforce, though that number is well short of our needs.

Greeting. This site really interesting! I added it to my favourite links.
I am from Libya and now teach English, give please true I wrote the following sentence: "Tenants should carry renters insurance, which is relatively inexpensive, and homeowners."